See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/236185268

The Psychometric Properties of the Personality

Inventory for DSM-5 in an APA DSM-5 Field
Trial Sample
ARTICLE in ASSESSMENT APRIL 2013
Impact Factor: 3.29 DOI: 10.1177/1073191113486183 Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

READS

24

1,134

5 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Lena C Quilty

Lindsay Ayearst

Centre for Addiction and Mental Health

Multi Health Systems Inc

69 PUBLICATIONS 1,341 CITATIONS

16 PUBLICATIONS 227 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Michael Chmielewski

R. Michael Bagby

Southern Methodist University

University of Toronto

21 PUBLICATIONS 587 CITATIONS

341 PUBLICATIONS 14,977 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Lindsay Ayearst

Retrieved on: 06 October 2015

Assessment
http://asm.sagepub.com/

The Psychometric Properties of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in an APA DSM-5 Field Trial Sample
Lena C. Quilty, Lindsay Ayearst, Michael Chmielewski, Bruce G. Pollock and R. Michael Bagby
Assessment published online 15 April 2013
DOI: 10.1177/1073191113486183
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://asm.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/04/12/1073191113486183

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Assessment can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://asm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://asm.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Apr 15, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on April 19, 2013

486183

research-article2013

ASMXXX10.1177/1073191113486183Assessment 20(3)Quilty et al.

Article

The Psychometric Properties of the

Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in an
APA DSM-5 Field Trial Sample

Assessment
XX(X) 18
The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1073191113486183
asm.sagepub.com

Lena C. Quilty1,2, Lindsay Ayearst2, Michael Chmielewski3, Bruce G. Pollock1,2 and

R. Michael Bagby1,2

Abstract
Section 3 of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes a hybrid model
of personality pathology, in which dimensional personality traits are used to derive one of seven categorical personality
disorder diagnoses. The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) was developed by the DSM-5 Personality and Personality
Disorders workgroup and their consultants to produce a freely available instrument to assess the personality traits within
this new system. To date, the psychometric properties of the PID-5 have been evaluated primarily in undergraduate student
and community adult samples. In the current investigation, we extend this line of research to a psychiatric patient sample
who participated in the APA DSM-5 Field Trial (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health site). A total of 201 psychiatric
patients (102 men, 99 women) completed the PID-5 and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R). The internal
consistencies of the PID-5 domain and facet trait scales were acceptable. Results supported the unidimensional structure of
all trait scales but one, and the convergence between the PID-5 and analogous NEO PI-R scales. Evidence for discriminant
validity was mixed. Overall, the current investigation provides support for the psychometric properties of this diagnostic
instrument in psychiatric samples.
Keywords
personality, assessment, DSM-5
The approaching publication of the fifth edition of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-5) has occasioned extensive research into the
assessment and clinical utility of dimensional personality
traits (Krueger etal., 2011). In response to the well-established limitations of the categorical personality disorders
codified in the fourth edition of the DSM (DSM-IV), the
DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders workgroup
proposed a substantial revision to the diagnosis of personality pathology. This proposal included a hybrid model in
which a categorical diagnosis of personality disorder is
derived on the basis of dimensional, pathological personality traits as well as personality impairment. Workgroup
members and consultants developed a freely available
instrument for the assessment of the dimensional personality traits within this modelthe Personality Inventory
for the DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon,
Watson, & Skodol, 2012)which has demonstrated initial promise in undergraduate student and community
adult samples (Ashton, Lee, deVries, Hendrickse, &
Born, 2012; Hopwood, Thomas, Markon, Wright, &
Krueger, 2012; Wright, Thomas, etal., 2012). The current
investigation contributes to this line of investigation from

an applied perspective, in a focused evaluation of the psychometric properties of the PID-5 required for use within
a clinical setting.
As outlined in Section 3 of the DSM-5, 25 dimensional
lower-order personality facet traits are used to derive
one of seven possible personality disorder diagnoses:
schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, narcissistic, avoidant,
obsessivecompulsive, and trait-specified. These 25 traits
are proposed to reside within one or more five higherorder personality domains: negative affect, detachment,
psychoticism, antagonism, and disinhibition. These
domains resemble those found in established models of
personality pathology such as the Personality
1

Campbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction

and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
2
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
3
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA
Corresponding Author:
R. Michael Bagby, Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry, University
of Toronto, Research Science Bldg, SY-124 (Scarborough Campus), 1265
Military Trail, Toronto, Ontario M1C 1A4, Canada.
Email: rmbagby@utsc.utoronto.ca

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on April 19, 2013

Assessment XX(X)

PsychopathologyFive (Harkness & McNulty, 1994) and/

or measures of pathological personality such as the
Dimensional Assessment of Personality PathologyBasic
Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ; Livesley, Jang, & Vernon,
1998) and the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive
Personality (SNAP; Clark, 1993; Clark, Simms, Wu, &
Casillas, in press). The domain and facet traits of the
DSM-5 model were empirically derived from a larger set
of 37 traits, identified by the DSM-5 Personality and
Personality Disorders workgroup as a comprehensive collection of indicators of personality pathology. The convergence between the resultant DSM-5 proposal and
accumulated empirical research in dimensional personality lends credence to the robustness and validity of its constituent traits (see Harkness, Finn, McNulty, & Shields,
2012; Samuel & Widiger, 2008).
The PID-5 has demonstrated acceptable to good psychometric properties in the published literature to date. The
hierarchical structure of the PID-5 maps well onto extant
models of personality and psychopathology, providing evidence for the construct validity of this measure (Wright
etal., 2012). Furthermore, the traits of the PID-5 have been
linked with traits of prominent models of personality, demonstrating the convergent and discriminant validity of scale
scores (Ashton etal., 2012; Wright, Pincus, etal., 2012).
Finally, and perhaps most important from a clinical perspective, the PID-5 scales account for a substantial amount
of variance in DSM-IV personality disorder severity and are
linked to DSM-IV personality disorders as designed
(Hopwood etal., 2012). Taken together, these investigations provide initial support for the PID-5 as a measure of
the dimensional model of personality proposed for use in
the DSM-5.
The current investigation joins several other investigations in this special issue to address the limitations of the
existing psychometric support for the PID-5. Of critical
importance, the properties of the PID-5 have yet to be
evaluated in a psychiatric sample (cf., Watson, Stasik, Ro,
& Clark, 2013), which we believe is necessary prior to its
use in clinical settings. Furthermore, the associations
between the traits of the PID-5 and the Five Factor Model
of personality have yet to be examined empirically (cf., De
Fruyt etal., 2013; Thomas etal., 2013). The DSM-5
Personality and Personality Disorders workgroup argued
that the traits of this widely used model do not capture
pathological traits of clinical relevance in an optimal or
comprehensive way. In particular, traits associated with
paranoid, schizotypal, and schizoid personality are absent
or inadequately represented by scales assessing Openness
to Experience (Tackett, Silberschmidt, Krueger, &
Sponheim, 2008; Watson, Clark, & Chmielewski, 2008). It
is important to explore such associations in a sample likely
to exhibit a range of such symptoms. We focus on these
particular areas of need, to begin the research required to

fully evaluate the validity of the proposed diagnostic

scheme.

The Current Investigation

Our objective in the current investigation was to evaluate
the psychometric properties of the PID-5 domain and facet
scales with a psychiatric patient sample. In contrast to earlier investigations (e.g., Ashton etal., 2012; Hopwood etal.,
2012; Wright etal., 2012), we evaluated the psychometric
properties of the domain scales as calculated according to
most recent guidelines, wherein each domain represents the
average of three facet scales: Negative Affect is the average of the Emotional Lability, Anxiousness, and
Separation Insecurity facet scales; Detachment of
Withdrawal, Anhedonia, and Intimacy Avoidance;
Antagonism of Manipulativeness, Deceitfulness, and
Grandiosity; Disinhibition of Irresponsibility, Impulsivity,
and Distractibility; and Psychoticism of Unusual Beliefs
and Experiences, Eccentricity, and Perceptual Dysregulation.
We hypothesized that the PID-5 domain and facet scales
will exhibit adequate internal consistency and unidimensional structure, consistent with Krueger etal. (2012). We
further hypothesized that the PID-5 facet scales will be
positively associated due to saturation with general personality pathology and distress, but that the PID-5 facet scales
within a domain will exhibit greater associations with each
other than with facet scales of other domains. We also hypothesized that the PID-5 domain and facet scales will be moderately to strongly associated with thematically correspondent
Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) domain and
facet scales, with the exception of the PID-5 Psychoticism
domain and the Openness-to-Experience domain, which are
likely to exhibit at best a weak association.

Method
Participants
The sample included 201 outpatients (102 men, 99 women)
who had previously participated in the APA DSM-5 Field
Trial at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
(CAMH) in Toronto, Canada. Participants ranged in age
from 19 to 73 years (M = 41.37, SD = 13.67). Current Axis
I diagnoses included schizophrenia (n = 42), schizoaffective
disorder (n = 36), attenuated psychosis (n = 14), personality
disorder (n = 69), and other psychiatric diagnoses (n = 40)
including mood, anxiety, substance use, impulse control,
and pervasive developmental disorders.
All participants were required to meet the following criteria: (a) to endorse or exhibit current psychiatric symptoms, (b) to be 18 years of age or older, and (c) to be able to
consent and complete the study protocol in English (see
Clarke etal., 2013, for a full description of study

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on April 19, 2013

Quilty et al.
procedures). Clinicians (provincially licensed psychiatrists
or registered clinical psychologists at the CAMH site)
recruited to participate in the DSM-5 Field Trial screened all
consecutive patients for field trial eligibility, and informed
all eligible patients of the opportunity to participate in the
trial; interested patients were subsequently contacted by
research staff to learn more about the protocol and to schedule research visits. Clinicians screened a total of 1,185
unique patients. Of these, 273 consented to participate and
242 were employed in trial analyses (see also Narrow etal.,
2013; Regier etal., 2013). Participants of the current investigation attended an additional assessment session, including the measures described below.

Measures
Personality Inventory for the DSM-5.The PID-5 (Krueger
etal., 2012) is a 220-item inventory newly developed to
assess the pathological personality dimensions of the proposed hybrid model of personality pathology. This measure
asks participants to rate statements on a 4-point Likert-type
scale from 0 (Very False or Often False) to 3 (Very True or
Often True). The PID-5 yields scale scores for five domain
and 25 facet scale scores.
Revised NEO Personality Inventory. The NEO PI-R (Costa &
McCrae, 1992) is a 240-item self-report measure frequently
used to assess five higher-order domain traits and 30 lowerorder facet traits of the Five Factor Model of personality.
This measure asks participants to rate statements on a
5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5
(Strongly agree). The NEO PI-R has been demonstrated to
be a reliable and valid measure of the Five Factor Model
traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992), including within clinical
populations (Bagby etal., 1999; Costa, Bagby, Herbst, &
McCrae, 2005; De Fruyt, Van Leeuwen, Bagby, Rolland, &
Rouillon, 2006).

Statistical Analysis
To estimate the internal consistencies of the PID-5 domain
trait scales, we calculated McDonalds omega () within a
latent variable framework (McDonald, 1970). McDonalds
is particularly suited to estimating the reliability of a
composite score (see Gignac, Bates, & Jang, 2007, for an
application). To evaluate the internal consistencies of the
PID-5 facet trait scales, we calculated Cronbachs coefficient and the average item correlation (AIC). The AIC statistic was used to supplement Cronbachs , as the AIC is
less influenced by scale length.
To evaluate factor structure, we conducted a series of
parallel analyses and Velicers minimum average partial
(MAP) tests to determine how many factors to extract for
each domain and facet scale (OConnor, 2000). Parallel

analysis involves the comparison of eigenvalues from a

factor analysis of the actual data with eigenvalues from a
factor analysis of a random dataset; the number of
factors to retain is based on the number of actual data
eigenvalues greater in size than random data eigenvalues
(Horn, 1965). This empirical method is well suited to the
current context due to the ability to generate random permutations of the existing data set, which maintain the
same distributional properties as the original. We used
1,000 randomly generated permutations of the existing
data set and compared actual data eigenvalues with the
95th percentile eigenvalues in the random data. Velicers
MAP test involves a series of principal components analyses of the data, extracting an increasing number of principal components. These components are partialed from
the correlations between variables. The number of factors
to extract is the number of components that generated the
lowest average squared partial correlation, which represent the systematic variance in the data (Velicer, 1976).
For scales with more than one factor according to both
indices, factor analyses were then conducted within
MPlus 4.2, using a robust maximum-likelihood estimator
and treating items as categorical (Muthn & Muthn,
1998-2006).
To evaluate convergent validity, we examined the
associations of the PID-5 facet scales within and across
each domain. Furthermore, we examined the associations
between the PID-5 domain and facet scales and the analogous NEO PI-R domain scale. Finally, we examined the
unique association of the NEO PI-R facet scales with the
analogous PID-5 domain scales. To accomplish this, five
linear regression models were evaluated, with each PID-5
domain scale serving as the criterion variable in separate
models in turn. NEO PI-R facet scales of the analogous
NEO PI-R domain were entered simultaneously as predictor variables. For example, the PID-5 Negative Affect
domain scale was modeled as a criterion variable and the
NEO PI-R Anxiety, Angry Hostility, Depression, SelfConsciousness, Impulsivity, and Vulnerability facet
scales as predictor variables in the first model. Although
Openness-to-Experience has been demonstrated to be distinct from Psychoticism and related traits (Tackett etal.,
2008; Watson etal., 2008), this regression was included
as well to explore Five Factor Model facet trait associations with this domain.

Results
The mean, standard deviation, and range of the PID-5 domain
scales were as follows: Negative Affect M = 1.35, SD = 0.75,
range = 0.00 to 2.95; Detachment M = 1.26, SD = 0.64, range
= 0.00 to 2.85; Psychoticism M = 0.94, SD = 0.64, range =
0.00 to 2.51; Antagonism M = 0.66, SD = 0.56, range = 0.00
to 2.80; Disinhibition M = 0.99, SD = 0.63, range = 0.00 to

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on April 19, 2013

Assessment XX(X)

Table 1. Descriptive Data for PID-5 Facet Trait Scales.

Domains/Facets

AIC

Range

M (SD)

Krueger etal. (2012), M (SD)

Anhedonia
Anxiousness
Attention Seeking
Callousness
Deceitfulness
Depressivity
Distractibility
Eccentricity
Emotional Lability
Grandiosity
Hostility
Impulsivity
Intimacy Avoidance
Irresponsibility
Manipulativeness
Perceptual Dysregulation
Perseveration
Restricted Affectivity
Rigid Perfectionism
Risk Taking
Separation Insecurity
Submissiveness
Suspiciousness
Unusual Beliefs & Perceptions
Withdrawal

.89
.93
.90
.87
.90
.96
.91
.95
.91
.75
.88
.89
.87
.82
.85
.86
.88
.82
.91
.87
.89
.79
.72
.85
.92

.51
.60
.52
.34
.47
.63
.52
.60
.59
.33
.43
.57
.51
.40
.54
.34
.44
.40
.51
.33
.54
.49
.27
.41
.55

0.00-3.00
0.00-3.00
0.00-3.00
0.00-2.29
0.00-2.80
0.00-3.00
0.00-3.00
0.00-2.92
0.00-3.00
0.00-3.00
0.00-2.90
0.00-3.00
0.00-3.00
0.00-2.86
0.00-3.00
0.00-2.58
0.00-2.86
0.00-3.00
0.00-3.00
0.00-2.71
0.00-3.00
0.00-3.00
0.00-3.00
0.00-2.63
0.00-3.00

1.38 (0.79)
1.67 (0.88)
0.83 (0.74)
0.47 (0.47)
0.66 (0.66)
1.17 (0.89)
1.31 (0.81)
1.16 (0.83)
1.38 (0.88)
0.66 (0.60)
1.07 (0.71)
1.00 (0.79)
1.07 (0.85)
0.66 (0.63)
0.66 (0.69)
0.83 (0.62)
1.18 (0.72)
0.92 (0.69)
1.10 (0.76)
1.06 (0.57)
1.00 (0.84)
1.29 (0.75)
1.26 (0.62)
0.84 (0.72)
1.33 (0.81)

0.89 (0.64)
1.02 (0.73)
0.81 (0.65)
0.40 (0.50)
0.52 (0.54)
0.53 (0.62)
0.82 (0.69)
0.82 (0.76)
0.94 (0.74)
0.82 (0.58)
0.91 (0.67)
0.77 (0.57)
0.61 (0.65)
0.39 (0.49)
0.80 (0.67)
0.44 (0.48)
0.82 (0.62)
0.97 (0.56)
1.05 (0.68)
1.05 (0.66)
0.80 (0.68)
1.17 (0.66)
0.95 (0.58)
0.64 (0.63)
1.01 (0.72)

.69
.81
.03
.14
.24
.85
.66
.43
.55
.27
.23
.34
.62
.49
.21
.72
.54
.08
.07
.02
.27
.17
.52
.30
.42

Note. AIC = average interitem correlation.

2.88. The mean, standard deviation, and range of the PID-5

facet scales are displayed in Table 1. To facilitate comparison,
the mean and standard deviation of the PID-5 facet scales
from the representative sample described in Krueger etal.
(2012) are also displayed. Anxiousness and Depressivity
were markedly elevated in the current sample as compared
with Krueger etal. (ds .81 and .85, respectively). Other facet
scales elevated as compared to this representative sample at a
medium effect size include Anhedonia, Distractibility,
Emotional Lability, Intimacy Avoidance, Perceptual
Dysregulation, Perseveration, Suspiciousness, Unusual
Beliefs and Perceptions, and Withdrawal (ds .52 to .72).
Grandiosity and Manipulativeness were in fact lower in the
current sample, albeit with small effect sizes.

Reliability
The internal consistencies of the PID-5 domain trait scales
were as follows: Negative Affect = .84; Detachment =
.75; Psychoticism = .87; Antagonism = .83; and
Disinhibition = .80. Cronbachs and AIC values of the
PID-5 facet trait scales are displayed in Table 1. All facet
scales demonstrated Cronbachs values greater than .70;

Callousness, Grandiosity, Perceptual Dysregulation, Risk

Taking, and Suspiciousness exhibited AIC values below .40
(mean = .87, mean AIC = .47).

Factor Structure
Both parallel analyses and MAP tests supported a one-factor structure for each of the domain scales. Parallel analyses
supported a one-factor solution for all facet scales but Risk
Taking. For this scale, the first three eigenvalues from the
actual data were 5.49, 2.06, and 0.96; the corresponding
first three 95th percentile random data eigenvalues were
1.59, 1.44, and 1.34, suggesting the retention of two components for rotation to solution. MAP tests supported a onefactor solution for all facet scales but Depressivity (average
partial correlation = .0315), Hostility (average partial correlation = .0381), and Risk Taking as well (average partial
correlation = .0197). Exploratory factor analysis of Risk
Taking items revealed that seven of eight positively keyed
items scored strongly on the first component (mean factor
loading .67, range .50 to .82) and minimally on the second
(mean factor loading .07, range .10 to .37). In contrast, all
negatively keyed items scored strongly on the second

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on April 19, 2013

Quilty et al.
Table 2. Univariate Associations Between PID-5 Domain and Facet Trait Scales.
1

2
.72
3 .01 .21
4
.27 .16
5
.20 .26
6
.84 .80
7
.58 .65
8
.45 .58
9
.56 .74
10 .03 .12
11
.49 .58
12
.20 .39
13
.18 .10
14
.34 .38
15
.10 .16
16
.45 .59
17
.56 .69
18
.29 .13
19
.40 .46
20 .07 .05
21
.41 .56
22
.33 .44
23
.48 .66
24
.21 .33
25
.60 .46
NA .65 .89
DE
.75 .54
AN .11 .21
DI
.45 .57
PS
.42 .56

.29
.58
.16
.33
.34
.35
.52
.42
.49
.06
.44
.59
.36
.38
.08
.30
.41
.44
.23
.29
.27
.02
.38
.04
.67
.49
.36

.63
.34
.28
.36
.18
.41
.57
.36
.15
.52
.48
.34
.27
.43
.30
.34
.18
.07
.32
.24
.42
.20
.36
.60
.45
.35

.33
.44
.42
.33
.49
.54
.54
.10
.67
.79
.45
.41
.37
.34
.36
.39
.20
.35
.32
.28
.37
.24
.90
.64
.45

.61
.53
.67
.02
.62
.36
.12
.49
.22
.56
.59
.23
.42
.01
.56
.43
.57
.29
.52
.78
.62
.23
.58
.52

.60
.62
.21
.57
.53
.16
.62
.29
.54
.72
.24
.42
.20
.51
.40
.48
.32
.46
.69
.51
.37
.86
.55

10 11

12

13

14 15 16 17 18 19

.48
.37 .10
.48 .63 .34
.45 .53 .30 .58
.15 .05 .06 .01 .07
.47 .45 .29 .58 .58 .14
.32 .21 .49 .40 .43 .02 .56
.71 .48 .34 .44 .44 .22 .47 .38
.59 .59 .31 .55 .45 .13 .48 .29 .58
.43 .09 .29 .21 .09 .38 .30 .34 .39 .25
.50 .46 .37 .53 .31 .14 .25 .32 .42 .62 .25
.27 .18 .30 .30 .52 .11 .32 .37 .20 .14 .07 .19
.42 .59 .23 .53 .49 .12 .46 .36 .46 .49 .04 .31
.35 .41 .10 .23 .28 .14 .30 .19 .42 .38 .15 .21
.56 .55 .28 .61 .45 .04 .38 .25 .49 .48 .16 .43
.66 .23 .42 .20 .31 .11 .30 .32 .69 .34 .31 .30
.49 .25 .18 .38 .18 .46 .37 .16 .50 .44 .58 .33
.67 .90 .17 .67 .54 .03 .50 .28 .59 .68 .03 .47
.46 .32 .10 .37 .12 .72 .36 .12 .50 .48 .53 .37
.43 .25 .76 .50 .50 .07 .60 .90 .46 .40 .39 .40
.60 .64 .31 .68 .84 .08 .84 .50 .57 .66 .24 .39
.90 .44 .42 .42 .45 .18 .47 .38 .88 .57 .43 .46

20

.16
.05
.26
.11
.02
.15
.09
.40
.41
.22

21

.42
.54
.24
.22
.82
.21
.38
.58
.42

22

.40
.29
.29
.48
.32
.20
.39
.39

23 24

.38
.39
.67
.38
.34
.52
.54

.36
.88
.24
.39
.49

.31
.31
.27
.41
.37
.88

Note. All correlations |.16| are significant at p < .05, all correlations |.20| are significant at p < .01. 1 = Anhedonia, 2 = Anxiousness, 3 = Attention
Seeking, 4 = Callousness, 5 = Deceitfulness, 6 = Depressivity, 7 = Distractibility, 8 = Eccentricity, 9 = Emotional Lability, 10 = Grandiosity, 11 = Hostility, 12 = Impulsivity, 13 = Intimacy Avoidance, 14 = Irresponsibility, 15 = Manipulativeness, 16 = Perceptual Dysregulation, 17 = Perseveration, 18 =
Restricted Affectivity, 19 = Rigid Perfectionism, 20 = Risk Taking, 21 = Separation Insecurity, 22 = Submissiveness, 23 = Suspiciousness, 24 = Unusual
Beliefs and Experiences, 25 = Withdrawal; NA = Negative Affect, DE = Detachment, AN = Antagonism, DI = Disinhibition, PS = Psychoticism. Correlations between domain scales and the facet scales used in their calculation in gray.

component (mean factor loading .60, range .50 to .81) and

minimally on the second (mean factor loading .01, range
.30 to .21). Thus, the Risk Taking facet scale appears to
exhibit a method effect reflecting item keying.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

The univariate associations among the PID-5 facet scales,
and between the PID-5 facet and domain scales, are presented in Table 2. Facet scales within each domain were
strongly correlated: mean r = .41 for Negative Affect; mean
r = .42 for Detachment; mean r = .53 for Antagonism; mean
r = .39 for Disinhibition; and mean r = .68 for Psychoticism.
Facet scales across domains were also significantly associated, although to a lesser degree: mean r = .36 for Negative

Affect; mean r = .30 for Detachment; mean r = .29 for

Antagonism; mean r = .35 for Disinhibition; and mean r =
.38 for Psychoticism. There was considerable range in discriminant associations, however. For example, within
Negative Affect, Anxiousness was strongly associated with
Anhedonia (Detachment) at r = .72, whereas Submissiveness
was not significantly associated with Risk Taking
(Disinhibition) at r = .05. All domain scales were significantly positively associated, rs ranging from .18 to .69
(mean r = .46).
The univariate associations between the PID-5 facet and
domain scales and NEO PI-R domain scales are displayed
in Table 3. The pattern of results was consistent with expectations. Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness were moderately to strongly associated

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on April 19, 2013

Assessment XX(X)

Table 3. Univariate Associations Between PID-5 Domain and

Facet Trait Scales and NEO PI-R Domain Scales.
Domains/facets

Negative affect
.81
Detachment
.49
Psychoticism
.39
Antagonism
.13
Disinhibition
.59
Anhedonia
.70
Anxiousness
.82
Attention Seeking
.19
Callousness
.17
Deceitfulness
.26
Depressivity
.78
Distractibility
.62
Eccentricity
.42
Emotional Lability
.73
Grandiosity
.04
Hostility
.63
Impulsivity
.43
Intimacy Avoidance
.07
Irresponsibility
.44
Manipulativeness
.11
Perceptual Dysregulation
.43
Perseveration
.60
Restricted Affectivity
.04
Rigid Perfectionism
.34
Risk Taking
.03
Separation Insecurity
.55
Submissiveness
.41
Suspiciousness
.58
Unusual Beliefs & Perceptions .17
Withdrawal
.39

.24
.71
.24
.14
.10
.66
.42
.38
.16
.05
.49
.29
.26
.16
.11
.16
.10
.34
.05
.18
.24
.26
.37
.13
.33
.04
.17
.22
.12
.67

.08
.21
.02
.06
.03
.11
.06
.18
.06
.00
.04
.07
.06
.14
.05
.00
.00
.19
.01
.10
.00
.16
.16
.21
.32
.00
.12
.01
.02
.19

.26
.22
.30
.60
.43
.22
.23
.39
.61
.58
.26
.29
.33
.19
.48
.58
.40
.02
.43
.47
.26
.30
.29
.32
.37
.26
.03
.47
.20
.28

.52
.37
.30
.22
.68
.45
.46
.20
.24
.39
.52
.60
.34
.46
.06
.46
.51
.11
.61
.20
.31
.40
.15
.02
.13
.42
.29
.35
.13
.32

Note. All correlations |.16| are significant at p < .05, all correlations
|.20| are significant at p < .01. N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O =
Openness to Experience, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness.

with the correspondent PID-5 domain scales and the facet

scales used to calculate them (in boldface in Table 3 to facilitate review). Overall, Neuroticism demonstrated the greatest overall association with the PID-5 facets (mean r = .39),
followed by Agreeableness (mean r = .33) and
Conscientiousness (mean r = .32), reflecting the emotional
distress and social and behavioral dysregulation typifying
personality pathology. Of note, Openness-to-Experience
was minimally associated with all the PID-5 scales with the
exception of Risk Taking (r = .32).
The results of the linear regression analyses are presented
in Table 4. NEO PI-R facet scales accounted for more than
50% of the variance in the analogous PID-5 domain scale for
all domains but Psychoticism. Negative Affect was positively predicted by Anxiety and Angry Hostility. Detachment
was negatively predicted by Warmth, Gregariousness,

Table 4. Linear Regression Analyses of the NEO PI-R Facets

Predicting PID-5 Domains.
Criterion/predictors

R2

Negative Affect
Anxiety
Angry hostility
Depression
Self-consciousness
Impulsiveness
Vulnerability
Detachment
Warmth
Gregariousness
Assertiveness
Activity
Excitement-seeking
Positive emotions
Psychoticism
Fantasy
Aesthetics
Feelings
Actions
Ideas
Values
Antagonism
Trust
Straightforwardness
Altruism
Compliance
Modesty
Tender-mindedness
Disinhibition
Competence
Order
Dutifulness
Achievement striving
Self-discipline
Deliberation

.67

62.30**

.39
.22
.09
.07
.04
.14

.56

38.84**
.21
.31
.14
.09
.09
.26

.25

10.08**
.36
.01
.04
.29
.13
.25

.52

33.37**
.07
.55
.03
.05
.24
.04

.56

39.94**
.10
.01
.19
.22
.45
.31

4.96**
3.75**
1.05
1.06
.80
1.92

2.94**
4.42**
2.50*
1.54
1.49
4.13**

5.09**
.11
.52
4.06**
1.70
3.73**

1.11
7.82**
.52
.75
3.98**
.64

1.29
.22
2.69**
3.22**
5.83**
4.80**

Note.*p < .05. **p < .01.

Assertiveness, and Positive Emotions. Antagonism was negatively predicted by Straightforwardness and Modesty.
Disinhibition was positively predicted by Achievement
Striving and negatively by Dutifulness, Self-discipline, and
Deliberation. Finally, Psychoticism was positive predicted
by Fantasy and negatively by Actions and Values.

Discussion
These results contribute to a growing body of evidence supporting the validity of the trait model and clinical tool proposed by the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders
workgroup. As anticipated, the majority of trait scales were

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on April 19, 2013

Quilty et al.
elevated in the current clinical sample as compared with the
representative sample of Krueger etal. (2012); the decreased
severity of Grandiosity and Manipulativeness may be
related to the Axis I disorders characterizing the current
sample. Domain and facet scales demonstrated acceptable
levels of internal consistency, and factor analyses supported
a unidimensional structure for all scales but one, supporting
the interpretation of a single summary score. The impact of
the method effect of the Risk Taking facet scale on measurement accuracy and validity requires further investigation, however.
The PID-5 facet scales within domains were strongly
associated, although significant associations were also
observed among facets across domains, consistent with our
hypothesis that scales would be associated due to their saturation with personality pathology and associated distress, as
well as with the strong secondary loadings evidenced in
previous research (e.g., Krueger etal., 2012). The moderate
associations between domain scales were also in line with
these hypotheses and previous literature. The PID-5 domain
and facet scales were also strongly associated with analogous NEO PI-R domain scales, supporting the convergent
validity of these scales. Evidence for the discriminant validity of the PID-5 domain and facet scales was mixed, however. Disinhibition domain and associated facet scales were
strongly associated with Neuroticism scores, and Negative
Affect scales similarly with Conscientiousness; such patterns of association are captured in hierarchical models
such as outlined by Wright etal. (2012). Numerous facets
were associated with more than one NEO PI-R domain
scale to a similar degree. In some cases (e.g., Unusual
Beliefs and Perceptions scale) this may indicate the lack of
available scales appropriate to gauge convergent and discriminant validity in the NEO PI-R; however, in others
(e.g., Risk Taking) this may further indicate shortcomings
in these forms of validity in these PID-5 scales.
The PID-5 domain scale associations with NEO PI-R
facet scales provide further characterization of domains
according to this novel scoring algorithm. Of note, Openness
to Experience was minimally associated with all the PID-5
scales with the exception of Risk Taking (r = .32). NEO
PI-R Openness facet scales accounted for a quarter of the
variance in the PID-5 Psychoticism scale, which was
uniquely associated with Fantasy in the positive direction,
and Actions and Values in the negative direction. Thus, the
trait domain associated with oddity, eccentricity, and peculiarity is clearly more consistent with the content domain of
psychoticism as conceptualized by Harkness and McNulty
(1994), as compared with the imaginativeness and exploration typifying openness/intellectas well as the unsympathetic, nonconforming trait domain of the same name
described by Eysenck, Eysenck, and Barrett (1985).
Previous investigations have provided critical evidence
for the validity of this measure and model. The current

investigation contributes to this line of research in being one

of the first tests of the PID-5 in a psychiatric sample. This
psychiatric sample exhibited a broad range of Axis I and II
symptoms, as reflected by the range of psychiatric conditions including a significant proportion of patients meeting
criteria for personality disorder diagnoses (34.3%). In this
context, results generally supported the internal consistency,
factor structure, and convergent validity of most of the PID-5
domain and facet scales in a clinical setting. Previous investigations have explored the hierarchical structure of the facet
scales, which speaks to the validity of this measure via its
convergence with established hierarchical models of personality (e.g., Anderson etal., 2013; Ashton etal., 2012; Wright
etal., 2012). The current investigation maintained a more
translational focus on the psychometric properties that may
permit clinicians to confidently and knowledgeably interpret
scale scores, with a nuanced understanding of how those
scores are linked with a popular model of personality.
Continued research such as that of Hopwood, Schade,
Krueger, Wright, and Markon (in press), who demonstrated
specific dysfunctional beliefs tied to the PID-5 personality
domains, will further contribute to the evaluation of the clinical utility of the PID-5 traits, in psychological treatment as
well as assessment.
Acknowledgment
We are indebted to all patients and clinicians for the time and
effort they dedicated to their involvement in this research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The
operating costs of this research were supported by the CAMH
Foundation.

References
Anderson, J. L., Sellbom, M., Bagby, R. M., Quilty, L. C., Veltri,
C. O., Markon, K. E., & Krueger, R. F. (2013). On the convergence between PSY-5 domains and PID-5 domains and facets: Implications for assessment of DSM-5 personality traits.
Assessment.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., de Vries, R. E., Hendrickse, J., & Born,
M. P. (2012). The maladaptive personality traits of the
Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in relation to the
HEXACO personality factors and schizotypy/dissociation.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 26, 641-659.
Bagby, R. M., Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., Livesley, W. J.,
Kennedy, S. H., Levitan, R. D., & Young, L. T. (1999).
Replicating the five factor model of personality in a psychiatric sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 11351139.

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on April 19, 2013

Assessment XX(X)

Clark, L. A. (1993). Manual for the schedule for nonadaptive and

adaptive personality. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Clark, L. A., Simms, L. J., Wu, K. D., & Casillas, A. (in press).
Manual for the schedule for nonadaptive and adaptive personality 2nd edition (SNAP-2). Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Clarke, D. E., Narrow, W. E., Regier, D. A., Kuramoto, S. J.,
Kupfer, D. J., Kuhl, E. A., & Kraemer, H. C. (2013). DSM-5
field trials in the United States and Canada, Part I: Study
design, sampling strategy, implementation, and analytic
approaches. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 43-58.
Costa, P. T., Bagby, R. M., Herbst, J. H., & McCrae, R. R.
(2005). Personality self-reports are concurrently reliable and
valid during acute depressive episodes. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 89, 45-55.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
De Fruyt, F., De Clercq, B., De Bolle, M., Wille, B., Markon, K.,
& Krueger, R. F. (2013). General and maladaptive traits in
a five-factor framework for DSM-5 in a university student
sample. Assessment.
De Fruyt, F., Van Leeuwen, K., Bagby, R. M., Rolland, J., &
Rouillon, F. (2006). Assessing and interpreting personality
change and continuity in patients treated for major depression. Psychological Assessment, 18, 71-80.
Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised
version of the Psychoticism Scale. Personality and Individual
Differences, 6, 21-29.
Gignac, G. E., Bates, T. C., & Jang, K. L. (2007). Implications
relevant to CFA model misfit, reliability, and the five-factor model as measured by the NEO-FFI. Personality and
Individual Differences, 43, 1051-1062.
Harkness, A. R., Finn, J. A., McNulty, J. L., & Shields, S. M.
(2012). The personality Psychopathology-Five (PSY-5):
Recent constructive replication and assessment literature
review. Psychological Assessment, 24, 432-443.
Harkness, A. R., & McNulty, J. L. (1994). The Personality
Psychopathology Five (PSY-5): Issues from the pages of a
diagnostic manual instead of a dictionary. In S. Strack & M.
Lorr (Eds.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality
(pp. 291-315). New York, NY: Springer.
Hopwood, C. J., Schade, N., Krueger, R. F., Wright, A. G. C.,
& Markon, K. E. (in press). Connecting DSM-5 personality traits and pathological beliefs: Toward a unifying model.
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment.
Hopwood, C. J., Thomas, K. M., Markon, K. E., Wright, A. G. C.,
& Krueger, R. F. (2012). DSM-5 personality traits and DSM-IV
personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121,
424-432.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in
factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179-185.
Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol,
A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological
Medicine, 42, 1879-1890.

Krueger, R. F., Eaton, N. R., Clark, L. A., Watson, D., Markon, K.

E., Derringer, J., & Livesley, W. J. (2011). Deriving an empirical structure of personality pathology for DSM-5. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 25, 170-191.
Livesley, W. J., Jang, K. L., & Vernon, P. A. (1998). Phenotypic
and genetic structure of traits delineating personality disorder.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 55, 941-948.
McDonald, R. P. (1970). The theoretical foundations of principal factor analysis, canonical factor analysis, and alpha factor analysis. British Journal of Statistical and Mathematical
Psychology, 23, 1-21.
Muthn, L. K., & Muthn, B. O. (1998-2006). Mplus users guide
(4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthn & Muthn.
Narrow, W. E., Clarke, D. E., Kuramoto, S. J., Kraemer, H. C.,
Kupfer, D. J., Greiner, L., & Regier, D. A. (2013). DSM-5 field
trials in the United States and Canada, Part III: Development
and reliability testing of a cross-cutting symptom assessment
for DSM-5. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 71-82.
OConnor, B. P. (2000). SPSS, SAS, and MATLAB programs for
determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicers MAP test. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396-402.
Regier, D. A., Narrow, W. E., Clarke, D. E., Kraemer, H. C.,
Kuramoto, S. J., Kuhl, E. A., & Kupfer, D. J. (2013). DSM-5
field trials in the United States and Canada, Part II: Testretest reliability of selected categorical diagnoses. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 59-70.
Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review
of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSMIV-TR personality disorders: A facet level analysis. Clinical
Psychology Review, 28, 1326-1342.
Tackett, J. L., Silberschmidt, A., Krueger, R. F., & Sponheim,
S. (2008). A dimensional model of personality disorder:
Incorporating DSM Cluster A characteristics. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 117, 454-459.
Thomas, K. M., Yalch, M. M. Krueger, R. F., Wright, A. G. C.,
Markon, K. E., & Hopwood, C. (2013). The convergent structure of DSM-5 personality trait facets and five-factor model
trait domains. Assessment.
Velicer, W. (1976). Determining the number of components from
the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41, 321-327.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Chmielewski, M. (2008). Structures
of personality and their relevance to psychopathology: II.
Further articulation of a comprehensive unified trait structure.
Journal of Personality, 76, 1545-1586.
Watson, D., Stasik, S. M., Ro, E., & Clark, L. A. (2013).
Integrating normal and pathological personality: Relating the
DSM-5 trait dimensional model to general traits of personality. Assessment.
Wright, A. G. C., Pincus, A. L., Hopwood, C. J., Thomas, K.
M., Markon, K. E., & Krueger, R. F. (2012). An interpersonal analysis of pathological personality traits in DSM-5.
Assessment, 19, 263-275.
Wright, A. G. C., Thomas, K. M., Hopwood, C. J., Markon, K.
E., Pincus, A. L., & Krueger, R. F. (2012). The hierarchical
structure of DSM-5 pathological personality traits. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 121, 951-957.

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at UNIV TORONTO on April 19, 2013